The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[DanZanzibar]

There are definitely times where digging in and letting the enemy come to you is the right call... I play pretty aggressively, but that's more due to my impatience than it being the better choice tactically Sometimes attacking is just suicidal, or at the very least extremely risky... those cases are where a well-fought defensive battle are definitely the right pick. This season in Late Antiquity, my Byzantines went up against General Sharpur's Picts. The map was flat and open, minus one steep hill covered in rough ground on the flank... the Picts bee-lined for the hill and dug in on top. Which was definitely a good choice with a medium foot horde army up against a ton of Byzantine lancers on that map. The game was a draw, but not for any lack of aggressiveness on my opponent's part... he let me get spread out and took the opportunity to counterattack, which very nearly got him the win. My cav managed to avoid being caught and crushed just long enough to survive.

And there are tactics which can be used, depending on the map and the armies. You see a good defensive hill on your opponent's side of the map with an army which is likely to hole up there? Bring enough firepower to make him choose between coming down or being shot to death. I've been forced out of defensive positions by hordes of archers harassing my troops. Or maneuver, attack him elsewhere, if the terrain allows. And sometimes there is a match where there's very little you can do... I felt that way in my match in CA with my Ptolemaic army vs Baldrick's Indo-Parthains. But those matches don't make me want to ban or restrict playstyles or types of army lists - just tells me I need to make more versatile army picks (or ones that can make up the points in other matches)!

Just to be clear, I'm not saying defensive play is bad. Earlier this season one of my opponents brought a lot of fire power and had a good defensive position... so he could dictate play by forcing me to attack. It was one of the best battle of my season and I enjoyed being forced into finding a creative way to dig him out.

[SnuggleBunnies]

There are always going to be some people who just camp no matter what, and I agree that that can be irritating. But I think they are few. Most people are going to camp sometimes, attack sometimes. In Biblical, I tended to camp against hoplite heavy armies, due to my fear of Offensive Spear slaughtering my Swordsmen. But against archer based armies like Kushites, Babylonians, and Persians, I attacked all along the line because I felt confident in doing so. And I think both judgments were correct; I won all my aggressive games against archer armies, and either lost or *narrowly* won against hoplite forces, despite much more defensive play.

And as to camping against better players, denying points is part of it. Another part of it is that, if I'm likely to lose in a fair fight, then it's in my interest to avoid a fair fight, and invite my opponent to attack. If you always attack with the logic that "well better to go for some points than guarantee none" then you encourage your opponents to camp against you, as they know you will come out eventually no matter what. So perhaps in that particular match it causes a 0-0 draw, but in the long run it might lessen the chance of that player camping against you. I have also learned the lesson that it doesn't pay to be a gentleman. Just because you played defensively in your last match against a certain opponent doesn't mean that it's now your turn to attack; in each match, you must make that decision based on terrain and army comps independent of what happened in any other match.

Or not. Sometimes people just camp anyways. That can provide an interesting challenge, however - and I think a very defensively deployed player is rarely in as impregnable a position as people think. Skirmishers can be brought up, flanks can be turned. I have both lost strong defensive positions and taken them. I also had a notable match with klayeckles this season where we slugged it out across a river, each trying in turn to attack and ending the match in a bloody draw.

In non-League play, where I play against a much wider variety of opponents, I sometimes make foolish attacks against strong positions if my opponent camps because I feel that my greater experience and thus skill with the game demand that I take on the riskier tactic. When there are no tournament points involved, and a player camps, I *always* attack, because there's nothing at stake. If a player camps repeatedly in tournament play, I feel less inclined to reward that behavior if it is very clearly a bad idea.

[DanZanzibar]

There are always going to be some people who just camp no matter what, and I agree that that can be irritating. But I think they are few. Most people are going to camp sometimes, attack sometimes. In Biblical, I tended to camp against hoplite heavy armies, due to my fear of Offensive Spear slaughtering my Swordsmen. But against archer based armies like Kushites, Babylonians, and Persians, I attacked all along the line because I felt confident in doing so. And I think both judgments were correct; I won all my aggressive games against archer armies, and either lost or *narrowly* won against hoplite forces, despite much more defensive play.

And as to camping against better players, denying points is part of it. Another part of it is that, if I'm likely to lose in a fair fight, then it's in my interest to avoid a fair fight, and invite my opponent to attack. If you always attack with the logic that "well better to go for some points than guarantee none" then you encourage your opponents to camp against you, as they know you will come out eventually no matter what. So perhaps in that particular match it causes a 0-0 draw, but in the long run it might lessen the chance of that player camping against you. I have also learned the lesson that it doesn't pay to be a gentleman. Just because you played defensively in your last match against a certain opponent doesn't mean that it's now your turn to attack; in each match, you must make that decision based on terrain and army comps independent of what happened in any other match.

Or not. Sometimes people just camp anyways. That can provide an interesting challenge, however - and I think a very defensively deployed player is rarely in as impregnable a position as people think. Skirmishers can be brought up, flanks can be turned. I have both lost strong defensive positions and taken them. I also had a notable match with klayeckles this season where we slugged it out across a river, each trying in turn to attack and ending the match in a bloody draw.

In non-League play, where I play against a much wider variety of opponents, I sometimes make foolish attacks against strong positions if my opponent camps because I feel that my greater experience and thus skill with the game demand that I take on the riskier tactic. When there are no tournament points involved, and a player camps, I *always* attack, because there's nothing at stake. If a player camps repeatedly in tournament play, I feel less inclined to reward that behavior if it is very clearly a bad idea.

Hey thanks for this... especially the part about the impact of multiple games against the same opponents over seasons plays in. This is the sort of perspective that is helpful to a newer player like myself.

All right, I'll learn to stop worrying and love camping.

[Ludendorf]

If you need any further encouragement, I just lost a critical match badly, and it was mainly due to my decision to launch a do-or-die attack with an inferior army against a veteran opponent who was more than ready for me. Sometimes, bunkering down is EXACTLY what you need to do. There are some army match-ups which are so severe that you need to treat the situation more like a Defend scenario than an Open Battle.

[Swuul]

All my 36 matches of the season are over. The emptiness of waiting for next season is here again

Maybe I should try to set up a 6-nation, I mean, 6-player tournament with extra large maps and extra large armies, each player choosing one army for the whole tournament, all matches as mirrored ones so that each player gets to play with both their army and against their army five times

Then again, setting up a tournament is much like work (and running something like the Digital League must be quite the burden; my hat is off in awe at the work Pete is doing), and I have enough of work already as it is...

[kronenblatt]

If you need any further encouragement, I just lost a critical match badly, and it was mainly due to my decision to launch a do-or-die attack with an inferior army against a veteran opponent who was more than ready for me. Sometimes, bunkering down is EXACTLY what you need to do. There are some army match-ups which are so severe that you need to treat the situation more like a Defend scenario than an Open Battle.

It’s a relief to read that even you make these do-or-die attacks, Ludendorf, and not only impatient newbies like me.

[devoncop]

All my 36 matches of the season are over. The emptiness of waiting for next season is here again

Maybe I should try to set up a 6-nation, I mean, 6-player tournament with extra large maps and extra large armies, each player choosing one army for the whole tournament, all matches as mirrored ones so that each player gets to play with both their army and against their army five times

Then again, setting up a tournament is much like work (and running something like the Digital League must be quite the burden; my hat is off in awe at the work Pete is doing), and I have enough of work already as it is...

Roll on next season Swuul....

It will take me until October to get over your Samnites pipping my Etruscans in the 61-58 nailbiter

[SimonLancaster]

There is camping and camping. If the map design could keep the edges of the map clear then perhaps better. Someone camping on a hill right at the back of the map is tough, especially with PBEM. You waste a week or more just getting face-to-face with your opponent. Quite demoralising.

A hill in the middle of the map has options for manoeuvres and feints.

[rbodleyscott]

There is camping and camping. If the map design could keep the edges of the map clear then perhaps better. Someone camping on a hill right at the back of the map is tough, especially with PBEM. You waste a week or more just getting face-to-face with your opponent. Quite demoralising.

A hill in the middle of the map has options for manoeuvres and feints.

The random map generator is actually designed to have more terrain at the edges of the map than in the centre, because, of course, that is more realistic for battlefields in this period.

If one side sits on its baseline and effectively decides not to offer battle except at a major terrain advantage, that is also entirely historical.

The issue this can cause in tournaments is one for tournament rules (and the players) to sort out, not for the game itself to sort out.

[SimonLancaster]

There is camping and camping. If the map design could keep the edges of the map clear then perhaps better. Someone camping on a hill right at the back of the map is tough, especially with PBEM. You waste a week or more just getting face-to-face with your opponent. Quite demoralising.

A hill in the middle of the map has options for manoeuvres and feints.

The random map generator is actually designed to have more terrain at the edges of the map than in the centre, because, of course, that is more realistic for battlefields in this period.

If one side sits on its baseline and effectively decides not to offer battle except at a major terrain advantage, that is also entirely historical.

The issues this can cause in tournaments is one for tournament rules (and the players) to sort out, not for the game itself to sort out.

Yes, I did it myself with a Carthaginian skirmisher army v Macedon. Sat right at the back on rough ground. My opponent did manage to get to me and beat me. I felt a bit guilty but he won in the end, anyway.

[stockwellpete]

One of the ideas that myself and Schweetness101 have provisionally introduced into the Alternative Gameplay Mod is that any unit being required to take a cohesion test in the last four rows nearest to the army's baseline would suffer a -1 CT penalty. The rationale for this is that soldiers are less confident about their commander if they are not marching forwards towards the middle of the battlefield, but instead are hesitating (cowering?) around the rear edge of the map.

[devoncop]

One of the ideas that myself and Schweetness101 have provisionally introduced into the Alternative Gameplay Mod is that any unit being required to take a cohesion test in the last four rows nearest to the army's baseline would suffer a -1 CT penalty. The rationale for this is that soldiers are less confident about their commander if they are not marching forwards towards the middle of the battlefield, but instead are hesitating (cowering?) around the rear edge of the map.

Whilst I understand the motivation , if I was an archer in a massed bow or medium foot unit I personally would feel far more secure sat on top of a rocky hill or at the edge of a thick forest near my baseline not having moved an inch than I would being told to march across open flat land to five spaces off the baseline to meet up with some nice heavy lancers thundering towards me..but that's just me I guess

[Ludendorf]

You could maybe make it a positive thing instead. If you push up the map and are fighting close to the enemy camp, then your troops get a cohesion bonus. It would make those risky assaults on bad terrain much more bearable.

[gamercb]

I think it depends on the matchup of both players and factions. I tend to play rather defensively against people who usually beat me; not that it saved me against Nosy_Rat or Ludendorf or pantherboy! But I think I did better than I would have with an offensive strategy. I even went so far as to camp and refuse to move from a strong position against Nosy_Rat in Early Medieval, for a 0-0 draw. Yet considering how he and I each did in the rest of the matchups (him very well, me 2 wins 3 draws 4 losses) I think camping for the draw was the right call. There were also some matches where I attacked and frankly I should have invited a draw rather than play to my opponent's strategy.

It's true that you have to attack to have a chance of scoring against a defensive opponent. But I think against opponents who camp 'unreasonably' you have to choices - just call them on it and draw, or try to find a way to attack. Both are valid.

Still, there's no sense getting that irritated about it. If you win all your matches except those in which your opponent camped too hard and went, say, 6 wins and 3 draws - you're very likely to promote a division. A player who always camps will not do so well, and is unlikely to promote. Even if they do promote, it's behavior that works better against less experienced players who aren't as versed in strategies like weighted flanks etc. as in higher divisions.

i have to say snuggles hits it on the head...camping is perfectly legit. why would someone get frustrated by that? if i'm a general leading an army of 50,000 troops and i find myself with a battlefield that greatly favors the enemy if i move...wouldn't i be foolish to move? endangering the lives of all my soldiers? live to fight another day is one of the oldest adages of combat. some armies are just plain not cut out to fight certain armies on certain map types.

and horse armies are perfectly legit. I can't say i like playing them, and i don't particularly like fighting them...but adapting to the enemy's army build of all horse or all inf. or all skirmishers etc... is what makes being a general in this game such a challenge. if we start cutting out some army types we reduce the range of challenges, and what make this game so great. to avoid these types of encounters choose the appropriate era or special and also an army that can adapt to differnt army types (ALWAYS a good idea).

It all depends why you play. These are not real soldiers, they are electronic ones. I play in the league to fight battles and to give my opponents as hard a time as I can. I hope to win, but that is not what is happening in the Late Antiquites Division E. I recently played an opponent who sat back because I occupied a hill. I could have waited for the draw, but opted in the end to advance and fight him. My other opponents had met me on fairly open ground and, in some cases, thrashed me. I decided I could not deny this opponent the chance to do the same. To have remained where I was would have denied him points and could have affected the result of the league just because he was unlucky enough to have a battlefield where I had a favourable hill. I get bored sitting on hills. I think the rule should be you do not score points if you do not defeat your opponent OR reach a draw through time running out. No agreed draws. Play the 24 turns doing nothing if you really want to.

[Karvon]

If you read historical accounts, they are filled with examples of armies that faced off and then failed to engage due to neither wishing to attack the other on what was perceived as unfavorable terms. Likewise there are plenty in which one side decided to get stuck in anyway, despite that. The outcomes of those varied depending on the tactics used. If you don't like campers, then you need to pick an army that can give you some reasonable tools to deal with them. Sometimes even then, given the terrain and match ups, it's wiser to settle for a draw than foolishly destroying yourself on an invincible position.

If you can't deal with that, then stick to friendly games with people share the same views, as people in tourneys are gonna play to maximize their points and minimize yours. I've had battles where my opponent already had a good lead in tourney points, didn't like the match up vs my army and simply hid in a corner to avoid the risk of giving me any points at all. I normally bring lots of skirmishers so I simply massed them and blasted enough at least score some points. Likewise, when the situation is looking hopeless, breaking off and avoiding further combat to preserve your army is perfectly reasonable, rather fighting vainly to the last man. It's all part of the game.

[General Shapur]

I think it depends on the matchup of both players and factions. I tend to play rather defensively against people who usually beat me; not that it saved me against Nosy_Rat or Ludendorf or pantherboy! But I think I did better than I would have with an offensive strategy. I even went so far as to camp and refuse to move from a strong position against Nosy_Rat in Early Medieval, for a 0-0 draw. Yet considering how he and I each did in the rest of the matchups (him very well, me 2 wins 3 draws 4 losses) I think camping for the draw was the right call. There were also some matches where I attacked and frankly I should have invited a draw rather than play to my opponent's strategy.

It's true that you have to attack to have a chance of scoring against a defensive opponent. But I think against opponents who camp 'unreasonably' you have to choices - just call them on it and draw, or try to find a way to attack. Both are valid.

Still, there's no sense getting that irritated about it. If you win all your matches except those in which your opponent camped too hard and went, say, 6 wins and 3 draws - you're very likely to promote a division. A player who always camps will not do so well, and is unlikely to promote. Even if they do promote, it's behavior that works better against less experienced players who aren't as versed in strategies like weighted flanks etc. as in higher divisions.

i have to say snuggles hits it on the head...camping is perfectly legit. why would someone get frustrated by that? if i'm a general leading an army of 50,000 troops and i find myself with a battlefield that greatly favors the enemy if i move...wouldn't i be foolish to move? endangering the lives of all my soldiers? live to fight another day is one of the oldest adages of combat. some armies are just plain not cut out to fight certain armies on certain map types.

and horse armies are perfectly legit. I can't say i like playing them, and i don't particularly like fighting them...but adapting to the enemy's army build of all horse or all inf. or all skirmishers etc... is what makes being a general in this game such a challenge. if we start cutting out some army types we reduce the range of challenges, and what make this game so great. to avoid these types of encounters choose the appropriate era or special and also an army that can adapt to differnt army types (ALWAYS a good idea).

It all depends why you play. These are not real soldiers, they are electronic ones. I play in the league to fight battles and to give my opponents as hard a time as I can. I hope to win, but that is not what is happening in the Late Antiquites Division E. I recently played an opponent who sat back because I occupied a hill. I could have waited for the draw, but opted in the end to advance and fight him. My other opponents had met me on fairly open ground and, in some cases, thrashed me. I decided I could not deny this opponent the chance to do the same. To have remained where I was would have denied him points and could have affected the result of the league just because he was unlucky enough to have a battlefield where I had a favourable hill. I get bored sitting on hills. I think the rule should be you do not score points if you do not defeat your opponent OR reach a draw through time running out. No agreed draws. Play the 24 turns doing nothing if you really want to.

I should like to see a points deduction where we currently have a 0-0 draw. Thus when 2 sides decide not to engage they incur a 4 point loss each. It would be very hard to take a decision to hide in the bushes in such cases.

[rbodleyscott]

I should like to see a points deduction where we currently have a 0-0 draw. Thus when 2 sides decide not to engage they incur a 4 point loss each. It would be very hard to take a decision to hide in the bushes in such cases.

And yet some players still would camp in an "impregnable" position, and it would not be fair to their opponent if he must suicide to avoid losing 4 points.

[SpeedyCM]

You actually get a pretty significant advantage if your opponent camps along his own map edge.
Every time one of his units rout it is instantly lost off the map edge where as your own routing units have multiple turns to rally as they head towards your map edge.

[General Shapur]

I should like to see a points deduction where we currently have a 0-0 draw. Thus when 2 sides decide not to engage they incur a 4 point loss each. It would be very hard to take a decision to hide in the bushes in such cases.

And yet some players still would camp in an "impregnable" position, and it would not be fair to their opponent if he must suicide to avoid losing 4 points.

Perhaps in a standoff 4 points loss if you do not leave your half of the field - other player gets 0. Would that fix it?

[paulmcneil]

I should like to see a points deduction where we currently have a 0-0 draw. Thus when 2 sides decide not to engage they incur a 4 point loss each. It would be very hard to take a decision to hide in the bushes in such cases.

And yet some players still would camp in an "impregnable" position, and it would not be fair to their opponent if he must suicide to avoid losing 4 points.

Perhaps in a standoff 4 points loss if you do not leave your half of the field - other player gets 0. Would that fix it?

I'd love that, get my horse archers into the opponent's half of the board, before they can get any units over my line, play for a draw, then see the opponents score get trashed. Conversely with my infantry army, I'd make sure I got one light unit over the line and hide it in a bush, play for a draw, walk away without losing any points.